Bob Iger: "‘We’ve got some pretty exciting things that we’ll be announcing over the next few months"

[marni1971]

They are going to build one in CA.

They are looking at the potential of one, as one of many various proposals for a third gate.

 

[FrankLapidus]

You have made my point for me. As I stated, it was the intervention of Roy E. Disney and Stanley Gold that directly caused the Pixar terms and price to become unreasonable. They undermined TWDC in the same fashion as their company Shamrock Holdings specialized in weakening other companies in pursuit of hostile takeovers.

They was certainly a tenacious struggle for power between Eisner and Roy E. Disney and of course the idiot nephew won in the end. TWDC ended up paying the price by having to pay a high premium for Pixar.

You say its all Eisner's fault. I say the fault is shared among all players and that the idiot nephew shares a larger burden of the blame.

Steve Jobs had already decided in 2002 that he wouldn't be signing a new deal with Disney while Michael Eisner was CEO. It preceded SaveDisney and had very little to do with Roy E. Disney and Stanley Gold and everything to do with Michael Eisner. The terms and price went up because, while Eisner was deluding himself into believing and convincing the rest of the board that Disney didn't need Pixar, Disney's animated films were tanking and costing the company millions of dollars while Pixar's films were huge critical and commercial successes. A lack of critical foresight on the part of Michael Eisner to recognise Pixar's potential and value early on cost both himself and TWDC hugely in the end. You can blame Roy all you want, Eisner is the one who could have done a deal and refused to do so. The most damning indictment of his poor judgement is that one of the very first things Bob Iger, Eisner's loyal lieutenant, did after being told he would become CEO was to contact Jobs and put plans in motion to resurrect the relationship. This also revitalised Disney animation in the process by bringing Lasseter and Catmull into the fold, achieving in one deal what Eisner had failed to do in the decade since he'd forced Katzenberg out of the company.

It was not all Eisner's fault but a very large portion of the blame lies squarely at his door, as it does in other debacles such as the lawsuit that Jeffrey Katzenberg filed and won against the TWDC, costing it millions of dollars and in the farce that was the hiring and firing of Eisner's former best friend Michael Ovitz as President of the company which, again, cost the company millions of dollars. There's a common theme developing here isn't there? It seems Michael Eisner's ego-driven personal grudges cost Disney an awful lot of money. How do you think the shareholders felt about that?

 

[Darth Sidious]

They are looking at the potential of one, as one of many various proposals for a third gate.

Are there any maps that show the plotted third gate land? I'm sure someone here made one up. Just curious if you knew.

 

[JimboJones123]

Steve Jobs had already decided in 2002 that he wouldn't be signing a new deal with Disney while Michael Eisner was CEO. It preceded SaveDisney and had very little to do with Roy E. Disney and Stanley Gold and everything to do with Michael Eisner. The terms and price went up because, while Eisner was deluding himself into believing and convincing the rest of the board that Disney didn't need Pixar, Disney's animated films were tanking and costing the company millions of dollars while Pixar's films were huge critical and commercial successes. A lack of critical foresight on the part of Michael Eisner to recognise Pixar's potential and value early on cost both himself and TWDC hugely in the end. You can blame Roy all you want, Eisner is the one who could have done a deal and refused to do so. The most damning indictment of his poor judgement is that one of the very first things Bob Iger, Eisner's loyal lieutenant, did after being told he would become CEO was to contact Jobs and put plans in motion to resurrect the relationship. This also revitalised Disney animation in the process by bringing Lasseter and Catmull into the fold, achieving in one deal what Eisner had failed to do in the decade since he'd forced Katzenberg out of the company.

It was not all Eisner's fault but a very large portion of the blame lies squarely at his door, as it does in other debacles such as the lawsuit that Jeffrey Katzenberg filed and won against the TWDC, costing it millions of dollars and in the farce that was the hiring and firing of Eisner's former best friend Michael Ovitz as President of the company which, again, cost the company millions of dollars. There's a common theme developing here isn't there? It seems Michael Eisner's ego-driven personal grudges cost Disney an awful lot of money. How do you think the shareholders felt about that?

Wasn't it like $200 million total for Katz and Obitz?

 

[TP2000]

They are looking at the potential of one, as one of many various proposals for a third gate.

The big piece of property for the Third Gate in Anaheim is a tricky one. It's separated from the rest of the Disneyland Resort by three long blocks of dense tourist suburbia, and it's either going to have to have one heckuva Disney transportation system back and forth between the Esplanade, or it's going to have to be a super-amazing concept that can stand all on its own for the next 50 years several blocks away from the Mother Ship.

Either way, WDI really has their work cut out for them to get the Third Gate going for Anaheim. It can't be like DCA, where they lucked out on not having it completely crash and close within two years of opening simply because it was a 75 yard walk from the Disneyland main entrance and they could easily play ticketing games with park-hoppers and continual 2Fer1 sales.

 

[Goofyernmost]

The last time I was at Disneyland was in 2005, I stayed in a "partner" hotel on Disney Way. My memory could be a little iffy, but it seems that there was some basically unused land at the end of Disney Way both sides of the Street directly across from Disneyland/California Adventure. Seems like there was something about some gardens going in there. Although it isn't a huge piece of property, it seems like they might be able to expand it by buying property and make a third gate right there. They would have to find a way to bridge Harbor Blvd. but that seems like a doable thing that at the most might require a tram ride.

 

[Clever Name]

Steve Jobs had already decided in 2002 that he wouldn't be signing a new deal with Disney while Michael Eisner was CEO. It preceded SaveDisney and had very little to do with Roy E. Disney and Stanley Gold and everything to do with Michael Eisner. The terms and price went up because, while Eisner was deluding himself into believing and convincing the rest of the board that Disney didn't need Pixar, Disney's animated films were tanking and costing the company millions of dollars while Pixar's films were huge critical and commercial successes. A lack of critical foresight on the part of Michael Eisner to recognise Pixar's potential and value early on cost both himself and TWDC hugely in the end. You can blame Roy all you want, Eisner is the one who could have done a deal and refused to do so. The most damning indictment of his poor judgement is that one of the very first things Bob Iger, Eisner's loyal lieutenant, did after being told he would become CEO was to contact Jobs and put plans in motion to resurrect the relationship. This also revitalised Disney animation in the process by bringing Lasseter and Catmull into the fold, achieving in one deal what Eisner had failed to do in the decade since he'd forced Katzenberg out of the company.

It was not all Eisner's fault but a very large portion of the blame lies squarely at his door, as it does in other debacles such as the lawsuit that Jeffrey Katzenberg filed and won against the TWDC, costing it millions of dollars and in the farce that was the hiring and firing of Eisner's former best friend Michael Ovitz as President of the company which, again, cost the company millions of dollars. There's a common theme developing here isn't there? It seems Michael Eisner's ego-driven personal grudges cost Disney an awful lot of money. How do you think the shareholders felt about that?

This is enlightening because we are agreeing on more and more! You're right that Jobs had decided that he wouldn't deal with Eisner but he came to that decision before 2002. Jobs was unhappy with the original movie deal and wanted to renegotiate. I think that could have happened except for the Toy Story 2 fiasco.

As you know, Toy Story 2 was originally slated to be a direct to video project but Disney decided (late in the game) to make it a theatrical release. Jobs felt that Toy Story 2 should go towards the Pixar contract commitment. But as we also know, since it was a sequel, it didn't count toward fulfillment of the original contract. It probably would have been for the best had Eisner cut Jobs some slack on that part of the deal. However, Eisner decided to hold Jobs to the original contract largely because of the intractable attitude and behavior exhibited by Jobs.

That enraged Jobs and he decided not to enter into any more real negotiations with Eisner. From that point on, every offer from Jobs to continue doing business with Disney was completely untenable. Eisner was absolutely right to reject those offers. And yes, it became an epic battle between two gigantic egomaniacs!

Roy E. Disney instead of supporting the company and his fiduciary responsibilities to the shareholders decided to go rogue. He quit the BoD in December, 2003 and promptly created Save Disney to oust Eisner and support Pixar.

It is my opinion that a better deal could have come about had it not been for Roy E. Disney's decision to play the Shamrock shuffle.

 

[flynnibus]

Quite the opposite. Walt was TOLD by the board of directors that if he wanted Disney Co funding for his E.P.C.O.T. he would NEED to include an east coast version of Disneyland

Everything I read showed Disney looking to expand their theme park business to new sites.. even before the EPCOT concept.. so I don't necessarily buy this idea that the Magic Kingdom had to be forced into the Florida Project. The site selection process would have been entirely different if the property wasn't intended to support the company's ambition to expand their theme park business.

 

[FrankLapidus]

This is enlightening because we are agreeing on more and more! You're right that Jobs had decided that he wouldn't deal with Eisner but he came to that decision before 2002. Jobs was unhappy with the original movie deal and wanted to renegotiate. I think that could have happened except for the Toy Story 2 fiasco.

As you know, Toy Story 2 was originally slated to be a direct to video project but Disney decided (late in the game) to make it a theatrical release. Jobs felt that Toy Story 2 should go towards the Pixar contract commitment. But as we also know, since it was a sequel, it didn't count toward fulfillment of the original contract. It probably would have been for the best had Eisner cut Jobs some slack on that part of the deal. However, Eisner decided to hold Jobs to the original contract largely because of the intractable attitude and behavior exhibited by Jobs.

That enraged Jobs and he decided not to enter into any more real negotiations with Eisner. From that point on, every offer from Jobs to continue doing business with Disney was completely untenable. Eisner was absolutely right to reject those offers. And yes, it became an epic battle between two gigantic egomaniacs!

Roy E. Disney instead of supporting the company and his fiduciary responsibilities to the shareholders decided to go rogue. He quit the BoD in December, 2003 and promptly created Save Disney to oust Eisner and support Pixar.

It is my opinion that a better deal could have come about had it not been for Roy E. Disney's decision to play the Shamrock shuffle.

Let me make this very clear...I do not agree with you. In my view you are an Eisner apologist who has attempted to excuse every bad decision he made, directing childish insults at Roy E. Disney in the process. I fully supported Roy E. Disney, Stanley Gold and the SaveDisney campaign and fully believed, and still do, that it was imperative that Michael Eisner was removed from the company. I place a large portion of the blame for the breakdown in the Disney/Pixar relationship at the door of Michael Eisner for his poor judgement in not recognising Pixar's worth to the TWDC and for not making a deal with them long before the negotiations became contentious. In not doing so, he allowed the value of Pixar to increase rapidly through the success of their films, all the while waging a behind-the-scenes campaign within TWDC in an effort to devalue Pixar to the Board of Directors by passing them off as nothing more than a fad whose success wouldn't last. He was petty and vindictive in the financial and personnel cuts he implemented at WDAS through his puppet David Stainton to punish the animators for siding with Roy E. Disney, a supporter and champion of the division who had taken responsibility for it at a time when Eisner would have gladly shut it down without a second thought.

It is my opinion that a better deal could have come about had Eisner not displayed a critical lack of foresight and instead shown poor judgement in not recognising the value of Pixar to TWDC and refusing to acknowledge the consistent quality of the output from Pixar at a time when Disney animation was floundering commercially and critically, another failing that I believe Eisner is largely responsible for.

 

[flynnibus]

Wasn't it like $200 million total for Katz and Obitz?

Katz lawsuit was settled for almost 250 million in itself.. nevermind all the lawsuit costs that went into it.
Orvitz (not Orbitz) got a golden parachute worth 38million plus over 130 million in stock.

 

[stevehousse]

Does anyone know if the new Jobs movie touches any bases with the Disney Pixar toy story "story" at all?

 

[flynnibus]

Let me make this very clear...I do not agree with you. In my view you are an Eisner apologist who has attempted to excuse every bad decision he made, directing childish insults at Roy E. Disney in the process

He is an antagonist.. and you've fallen for it hook line and sinker.

 

[Computer Magic]

This is enlightening because we are agreeing on more and more! You're right that Jobs had decided that he wouldn't deal with Eisner but he came to that decision before 2002. Jobs was unhappy with the original movie deal and wanted to renegotiate. I think that could have happened except for the Toy Story 2 fiasco.

As you know, Toy Story 2 was originally slated to be a direct to video project but Disney decided (late in the game) to make it a theatrical release. Jobs felt that Toy Story 2 should go towards the Pixar contract commitment. But as we also know, since it was a sequel, it didn't count toward fulfillment of the original contract. It probably would have been for the best had Eisner cut Jobs some slack on that part of the deal. However, Eisner decided to hold Jobs to the original contract largely because of the intractable attitude and behavior exhibited by Jobs.

That enraged Jobs and he decided not to enter into any more real negotiations with Eisner. From that point on, every offer from Jobs to continue doing business with Disney was completely untenable. Eisner was absolutely right to reject those offers. And yes, it became an epic battle between two gigantic egomaniacs!

Roy E. Disney instead of supporting the company and his fiduciary responsibilities to the shareholders decided to go rogue. He quit the BoD in December, 2003 and promptly created Save Disney to oust Eisner and support Pixar.

It is my opinion that a better deal could have come about had it not been for Roy E. Disney's decision to play the Shamrock shuffle.

You forget to mention one key piece, Eisner turned on Roy E as well. A age limit was placed on Board of Directors and thus forced Roy E out of Disney. Eisner ego did him in.

 

[Clever Name]

I think of "idiot nephew" as an endearing nickname given to Roy E. Disney by his Uncle Walt. Al least I think we can all be pleased that Roy was able to replace Eisner with Bob Iger, a man for all seasons.

 

[Travel Junkie]

The last time I was at Disneyland was in 2005, I stayed in a "partner" hotel on Disney Way. My memory could be a little iffy, but it seems that there was some basically unused land at the end of Disney Way both sides of the Street directly across from Disneyland/California Adventure. Seems like there was something about some gardens going in there. Although it isn't a huge piece of property, it seems like they might be able to expand it by buying property and make a third gate right there. They would have to find a way to bridge Harbor Blvd. but that seems like a doable thing that at the most might require a tram ride.

This is taken from the Disney and More website. Disney owns the two plots in red. The smaller one to the north is currently cast parking and is eventually slated to be a guest parking structure. The larger plot is currently cast parking and the Toy Story guest parking lot and would become the third gate. To the left of the larger lot is the Anaheim Convention Center. In between the two lots is the Garden Walk mall. It has struggled ever since opening and I'm pretty sure it was recently sold again. To my knowledge it was not Disney that bought it. Too bad because as you can see it would be a very nice piece of land linking area they already own. I'm sure the owners also thought that and demanded a hefty price.

It is rumored that Disney owns other land in the area as well under assumed names.

photo credit http://disneyandmore.blogspot.com/2013/03/a-third-gate-for-disneyland-anaheim-yes.html

 

[FigmentJedi]

Everything I read showed Disney looking to expand their theme park business to new sites.. even before the EPCOT concept.. so I don't necessarily buy this idea that the Magic Kingdom had to be forced into the Florida Project. The site selection process would have been entirely different if the property wasn't intended to support the company's ambition to expand their theme park business.

Well the other property concepts were different beasts from Disneyland. The St.Louis project was basically an indoor Frontierland based around the Louisiana Purchase featuring a New Orleans Square and an old St. Louis as the primary setting with attractions based on the Lewis and Clark expedition, Pirates of the Caribbean, and Haunted Mansion. And over in his hometown of Marceline, Walt wanted to repurpose the old family farm into a "Living History Farm"-type attraction.

 

[Clever Name]

You forget to mention one key piece, Eisner turned on Roy E as well. A age limit was placed on Board of Directors and thus forced Roy E out of Disney. Eisner ego did him in.

See the rules of governance for the Disney BoD as reaffirmed in 1998 to wit:

"The Board reaffirms its retirement policy for directors, first adopted in 1974. This policy provides for the retirement of directors at age 72, or age 75 in the case of former Chief Executive Officers of the Company."

http://corporate.disney.go.com/corporate/cr_governance_timeline.html

 

[lazyboy97o]

The problem with that scenario is that no other studio had expressed any interest in buying Pixar for such as inflated price. After all, what would they get for 7.4 million dollars? They wouldn't get any of the seven previous films made by Pixar because Disney owned all of them. They'd get a piece of Ratatouille and the joy of having to work with Steve Jobs. It's no wonder that no other studio was interested in a deal with Pixar.

Buying Pixar was about getting John Lasseter back into the company.

 

[Captain Neo]

This is taken from the Disney and More website. Disney owns the two plots in red. The smaller one to the north is currently cast parking and is eventually slated to be a guest parking structure. The larger plot is currently cast parking and the Toy Story guest parking lot and would become the third gate. To the left of the larger lot is the Anaheim Convention Center. In between the two lots is the Garden Walk mall. It has struggled ever since opening and I'm pretty sure it was recently sold again. To my knowledge it was not Disney that bought it. Too bad because as you can see it would be a very nice piece of land linking area they already own. I'm sure the owners also thought that and demanded a hefty price.

It is rumored that Disney owns other land in the area as well under assumed names.

photo credit http://disneyandmore.blogspot.com/2013/03/a-third-gate-for-disneyland-anaheim-yes.html

What about the "strawberry fields" area that they allegedly own? Is that the parking area? I really don't think that land is a sufficient size to build a park on unless they somehow scoop up garden walk as well

 

[Californian Elitist]

What about the "strawberry fields" area that they allegedly own? Is that the parking area? I really don't think that land is a sufficient size to build a park on unless they somehow scoop up garden walk as well

I'm pretty sure the strawberry field is now the Toy Story parking lot.